Re: [EAI] Last Call: <draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952bis-12.txt> (Overview and Framework for Internationalized Email) to Proposed Standard
SM <sm@resistor.net> Mon, 07 November 2011 16:09 UTC
Return-Path: <sm@resistor.net>
X-Original-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ima@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00A2121F8BEF for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 08:09:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.551
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.551 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.048, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0eGarjuUoZPA for <ima@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 08:09:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.ipv6.elandsys.com (mx.ipv6.elandsys.com [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A10F721F8B59 for <ima@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 08:09:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SUBMAN.resistor.net (IDENT:sm@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.elandsys.com (8.14.4/8.14.5) with ESMTP id pA7G95eg011578 for <ima@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Nov 2011 08:09:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=opendkim.org; s=mail2010; t=1320682150; bh=0DhqaZ2gIKtcuXZTS9Lxxvmzs0QL4eA4yjaBe3qmJIw=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=nXSZIab+ghX6+eagTX043jsv2Yq6dkBvBOtcaFnyic3QESd7NkqNqM7ePPZp1EnUc M17yBr8N/jBWARMxtGiXHZgho86idtkqcKidVVIBmATfqr+w2Ff4UUsbZbEwHveSOv Skq8RzN+V35Q9jX7Q/RhKLfNpewWVU3AmVm7sLeg=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=resistor.net; s=mail; t=1320682150; bh=0DhqaZ2gIKtcuXZTS9Lxxvmzs0QL4eA4yjaBe3qmJIw=; h=Message-Id:Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References: Mime-Version:Content-Type:Cc; b=2HDCo15QOXboFAIyiSH7UWoiFTmIzfPoyobwM76FWNIN0m+KaA/dDw78+meQBa42G CRcMK17GkWPurhSfBGlY0KwEikhKan0rG+FkoqnBZ78dNP0AFlornZWqyQ6ioInrOb 1oz+eSBT+n8gJJsuGo2R9Fe4ppdsaHOdOmSkrxDo=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20111107065337.088b9fc0@resistor.net>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 07:35:27 -0800
To: ima@ietf.org
From: SM <sm@resistor.net>
In-Reply-To: <20111031140838.3060.2826.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20111031140838.3060.2826.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: Re: [EAI] Last Call: <draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952bis-12.txt> (Overview and Framework for Internationalized Email) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: ima@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "EAI \(Email Address Internationalization\)" <ima.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ima>
List-Post: <mailto:ima@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ima>, <mailto:ima-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 16:09:17 -0000
At 06:08 31-10-2011, The IESG wrote:
>The IESG has received a request from the Email Address
>Internationalization WG (eai) to consider the following document:
>- 'Overview and Framework for Internationalized Email'
> <draft-ietf-eai-frmwrk-4952bis-12.txt> as a Proposed Standard
>
>Please note that an earlier revision of this document was already
>approved by the IESG for publication as Informational. This document has
>references to and from draft-ietf-eai-5335bis and
>draft-ietf-eai-5336bis. As a result of IESG comments during IESG
>Evaluation of those two documents, the WG felt that they needed to make
>changes to this document and change its status to Standards Track from
>Informational. It is now being re-considered for Proposed Standard.
From Section 4.6:
"A conventional message is one that does not use any extension
defined in the SMTP extension document [RFC5336] or in the
UTF8header specification [RFC5335], and is strictly conformant to
RFC 5322 [RFC5322]."
Shouldn't the RFC 5335 and RFC 5336 references be updated to
draft-ietf-eai-rfc5335bis-13 and draft-ietf-eai-rfc5336bis-15?
From Section 11.3:
"When signatures are present, downgrading MUST be performed with
extreme care if at all."
The "MUST" in the above sentence could be lower-cased.
Regards,
-sm